What do you all think about this??!!?

Question

Requiring girls ages 11-12 to get Gaurdasil...(sorry if mispelled)...the vaccine that will prevent from getting HPV...leading contributor in cervical cancer. The govenor in Texas is putting this in effect now, but there are some that are agasint it. Why in the hell would you be against something that could prevent deaths??!!

Answer 1

There are two sides to every discussion, of course. This vaccine does appear to confer some benefits. If I were a sexually active woman who disliked condoms and liked to have multiple sex partners who had not yet been exposed to any of the four strains of HPV that this vaccine protects against, I just might sign myself up.

But that's not the same thing as making this vaccine MANDATORY for a preteen population it was not rigorously tested on a scant 8 months after its initial rush job FDA approval.

Aside from all the known risks of all vaccines, the unknown risks of this three shot regimen for preteens along with their other vaccine load, and the unknown long term risks of this vaccine for all populations, we have to look at cost vs. benefit.

7861 of the placebo subjects contracted 83 cases of HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias during the testing period compared compared to 4 cases among the 7858 subjects who were given GARDASIL. That's after counting out every subject with any prior exposure to these strains. This includes 42 of the less serious HPV 6-, 11- related low grade dysplasias.

Merck has published no data for how many non-HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias were contracted by these subjects over these periods, but some practitioners have commented that they expect the vaccine to protect against 40%-50% of all dysplasias.

In terms of every possible kind of dysplasia for which this vaccine confers protection, Merck's own clinical evidence suggests that this vaccine saved about 10 patients out of each 1000 injected from the painful process of having these dysplasias treated (over the entire course of follow ups which ranged from 18 months to 4 years). Note that the populations for these studies were not preteens but women at the height of their sexual activity. Further note that since the vaccine uses virus-like particles (a new vaccine technology) and is only about five years in testing now, there is no guarantee that it has any long term efficacy.

Of course, the pre-teen population is so less sexually active (and when active, so much less likely to be active with a previously contaminated partner) that I think it would be conservative to estimate that preteens are 5 times less likely to contract HPV dysplasias than the 16 to 26 year olds who were tested by Merck. So instead of saving 10 women per 1000 from painful treatments for HPV dysplasias, this vaccine would save perhaps 2 girls per 1000 from these procedures among the much younger population that Merck and Merck's politicians are targeting for mandatory vaccination.

Do we really want to pursue a public policy that costs $360,000 to vaccinate every 1000 girls while exposing each and every one of these thousand girls to the known adverse short term and largely unknown long terms side effects of three injections of a new vaccine just to save two of the more sexually active of these kids from having to have their dysplasias treated conventionally? What kind of a risk and cost vs. benefit trade off is that?

Note that nowhere are we discussing actual incidences of cervical cancer because there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that GARDASIL reduces cervical cancer rates, and even if we place our hope in the the fact that it might, cervical cancer is simply not a meaningful health risk for any girl in the target vaccination population who is getting an annual pap smear.

The Facts About GARDASIL

1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.

2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four “bad ones” protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.

3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don’t get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.

4) Merck’s clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the “placebo”) and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.

5) Both the “placebo” groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications — as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.

6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM — MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine’s supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and “precancerous lesions” (dysplasias) than the alum injected “control” subjects.

7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.

8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck’s biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.

These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter what your faith is you have no control over your daughters actions when you aren't looking. Everyone boys and girls are required to get certain vaccinations in order to attend school. I don't think it is such a far fetched idea that girls should get a vaccine to seriously limit their chances of getting a life threatening disease. I, myself had cells that could have potentially turned into cervical cancer and I had to have them frozen off. If I hadn't gone to the gynecologist when I did, it could have been much worse. I'd like to add that some vaccinations cause autism but if you want to send your child to public school you are forced to take the risk.

Answer 3

I'm against it currently. I haven't researched anything yet but I think you have to be careful with new vaccines/medications. We just don't know if there could be some terrible side effects down the road. I'd totally support making it mandatory 10 years or so down the line after there's been more tests and research, just to be sure that it's ok. But it is too damn early.

That's just my two cents, I could be totally wrong but who the hell cares? Rick Perry doesn't listen to anyone but Rick Perry.

Answer 4

Yes they characters are great! Romantic...! Elizabeth could love someone else and Henry tries to win her heart and succeeds!! If you put Elizabeth Jones as the main character it would be a great story. Her parents could have died or they left the country to do something important or something like that. First Elizabeth and Henry were childhood friends and deep down they love each other (When they were young). Then one of them have to go to another country (other words get separated)....Then they meet again. Still remembering each other but they don't know who is who!!!!!!!!!! Epic!! Lol. Good Luck If you want other romantic ideas try watching some dramas. Mostly Koreans. They are based on love and romance. Recommendations on romantic movies that I am obsessed with: Playful Kiss, The vow (not korean but anyway), The Lucky One, Wild Child, Boys over flowers and Drunken to love you. :)

Answer 5

Maybe because it is still a new drug and the side affects to it have not been around long enough to see if there are any long term ill effects.

You know these drug companies they bring out this new you beaut drug and in 20 years it is causing all sorts of side affects.

I would personally wait they will bring out better ones that they then will have the experience and information from the reports of this one

Just my opinion i hope it solves your query

Answer 6

Because there's some hippy weirdos out there that believe vaccines are a government conspiracy! They think the government is infecting us with diseases instead of helping us! But I'm not one of them. I'm gonna get my daughters vaccinated for HPV when they are old enough whether this bill is passed or not!

Answer 7

Several reasons:

1. Some people just don't like being told what to do.
2. Some people could be against taking this drug for religious reasons.
3. Some people are just crazy.

I'm all for it, but some people have other agendas besides just health care.

Answer 8

I'm totally for it... as long as getting the vaccine will be paid for by the gov't or cheap b/c many females can't afford the vaccination w/o insurance or help. But yeah, that's a great idea!

Answer 9

I think they are trying to do the same here in NJ. It's probably because people don't feel the need for it and there are side-effects to it.

Answer 10

People may be against it because it takes away your freedom to choose what drugs you may or may not want in your body- and it may be against some people's religion.

Answer 11

too many people want to control others to force them to adhere to their values or morals because they feel, superior to those that don't live as they do...


unfortunately in my experience most of them are hypocrites